I can't begrudge you enjoyment of Nausicaa the movie...
But I hated it.
Caveat: I would compare Nausicaa the movie to Nausicaa the anime as Dune, the abridged Lynch movie, to Dune, the series of books written by Frank Herbert.
Explanation: The manga-books of Nausicaa are so much richer and endearing and touching than the movie was.
Or, another explanation; the manga is abridged and castrated in my opinion.
You've also got to consider that Firewire vs USB2 is pointless when it's the hard drive that's the speed bottleneck.
My iPod only pushes 15mb/s, not the 50mb/s claimed Firewire limit.
Then there's the other thing: the Yepp solution is still 'vapor', insofar as it is still 5 months away from being in the channel. 5 months away from being a first generation $400 product.
The Apple iPod, in comparison, is a $400 *now* product, and it's 3rd generation now (1st gen 5gb, 2nd gen 10gb in same form factor, 3rd gen 10gb in slightly smaller form factor with a solid state scrollwheel), meaning it's got 2 generations of real world trials behind it.
Five months from now, will the Apple iPod be cheaper? Possibly. Will the Apple iPod offer more storage at the same price? Possibly. Will the Apple iPod offer more features (thanks to iSynch, iCal, etc)? Possibly. Will the Apple iPod offer more playback features (WMA, OGG, etc)? Possibly.
So you get *all* that for the price of an $18 Firewire card.
Whereas your USB2... well, that's 5 months from now. Lots of things can change in 5 months.
The iPod is a hard drive. Once hooked up to a computer using Firewire, you *can* mount it as an NFS share, you can ftp to it.
You mean you want an ftp port *on* the iPod itself?
The question still remains then as to what physical transport you would use... and I hazard Firewire is still the best choice for both power, support, and data throughput, which puts you back to square one.
Plug the iPod into a computer with a Firewire port and let it mount as a harddrive. What, you want to plug the iPod into a computer with the Firewire port and then access it as an FTP share?
Even on a 200dpi screen, that means an icon would be good for 0.7" on the screen.
Perhaps that's also why OS X is going with wysiwyg screen fonts, with the assumption that higher resolution displays will mean better font fidelity without additional font tweaking?
That's the first good argument against Fitts and single menubars I've heard:)
On the other hand, a large window makes a much easier target to hit than a small menubar, so that menubar on top + application window should still hold an advantage over menubar attached to window because in the end the user will still have to switch from menu to app in both situations.
Not all situations, of course.
Anyway, no, I guess I haven't forgotten which app I'm in; OS X prints the app name in bold in the menubar, so it's sorta hard to not notice. And as for closing apps x, y, and z; they all have active indicators in the Dock telling me they're still around, even with no windows open.
Besides which... logging out will close all active programs (it'll ask you first of course), so I dunno what the problem is?
I believe even *with*, and maybe *because* of 21" 1600x1200 resolution screens, Fitts law holds even more than before.
The 90 pixel tall menu is an even smaller target; your mouse, as precise as it is, has to traverse over hundreds more pixels than in the original 4" screen, making targetting menu bars even harder. Which is the reason why OS X icons scale up to 128x128, taking into account an expected increase in resolution in the future (larger icons are easier to see and hit, than traditional 32x32 icons). In fact, though it may be a hindrance now, that explains why *everything* in OS X is slightly larger.
"People who think POSIX is the best thing since sliced bread agree that Mach sucks"
Have you no opinion of your own? Just because other people think Mach sucks, you think Mach sucks? Did you know 95% of the population also think that the Mac sucks, even *before* OS X? Okay, so 95% is an exaggeration. But 'experts' also disavowed the Mac. What's new, the difference between you and them?
"The least Apple could have done would be to use a better microkernel"
How or why? What would be better about this new microkernel over the XNU-macho microkernel already in place? The macho microkernel has been tested across 16 years and 5 hardware architectures (68k, x86, PPC, Sparc, HP-UX), as well as 4 OSes (NeXT, Open, Darwin, and OS X), so it's fairly good, no?
Also, I would like to point out that the *Linux* kernel is deficient in regards to latency. Only recently has low latency and pre-emptive patches have made Linux reliably low latency. Not a problem with OS X; in which case, how do you define better?
"or to design a POSIX-compatible kernel from the ground up that was legacy-free and more similar to how Macs have always worked, no?"
You're going to have to define legacy free for me. What legacy does OS X have that burdens it. You'll also have to define how or why the classic Mac had an advantage that would make a different kernel an advantage.
The current kernel has several advantages over the classic Mac OS;
low latency: As evinced by CoreAudio multitasking: No application can take 100% of the CPU to the exclusion of any other application. multiprocessing: This is given 'for free' to any multi-threaded application. multithreading: The classic Mac OS could not handle multithreading, and as such, could not handle multiple processes, multiple CPUs, and multiple tasks gracefully. robustness: The classic Mac OS was not nearly as stable, reliable, or dependable as the current Mac OS, thanks to preemptive multitasking (to ensure no thread or process because CPU starved), protected memory spaces (to ensure that no application or process can intrude and disrupt any other application or process, including the kernel), and a much better virtual memory system to allow more efficient use of available, virtual, and shared memory. Of course, to counter this, one requires more memory than in the classic OS too.
"Like first. From users point of view, they are addressing that grey is out and they posted completely white screenshot. That could be painfull for eyes. I know I was having troubles with MOX on my Powerbook. Everything is too white and bright. "
You're right, it might be too painful on the eyes, but Apple doesn't provide a method to modify the default luminance, so for now everything is white and bright; that IS the HIG for the OS X UI.
"Second point. They are addresing that you need to use big photorealistic icons. Not true. Photorealistic icons are not simple and preety. I agree, first look is gorgeous, but from users point of view, carton like friendly icons are much closer to non-pro user. Second the sizes needed to look cool for photorealistic icons are automaticaly bigger that sizes needed for handdrawn ones. It's the question of on-screen space and memory needed for program. Programs with larger images are automaticaly slower."
They never said 'photorealistic icons'. To quote: "Your application icons should be vibrant and inviting, and should immediately convey your application's purpose. It is often useful to use a realistic rendering of the media and tool that the application represents or works with."
So your desire for rich, cartoony, friendly icons do not conflict at all with Apple's guidelines.
"Thrird point. Constant use of controls. I agree but, why the hell QT and iTunes looks completely different than other ones."
They claim it's consistent. They have *two* interfaces available in Interface Builder, brushed metal and white, which actually is the same as the difference between the PowerBook and the iBook, isn't it? Anyway, they seem to suggest that anything 'digital lifestyle' should be brushed metal and everything else is white.
"Fourth point. Drop down dialogs out of captions are not as good as they seem to be. Apple suggests that ok, cancel, etc should be put on bottom of dialog. So you get two ok and two cancel buttons. Without some visible border between."
Where do they say that you should have two pairs of ok and cancel buttons? What's a caption, btw? Sheets dropping out of dialogs, you mean? They don't suggest that you interrupt a dialog with a sheet, anywhere. Sheets are used in lieu of a dialog when you want to interrupt the user *and* keep the interruption attached to the document, instead of freezing the UI with a permanently on top dialog.
"Fifth point. They forgot to take in consideration points of no happenings. While Aqua constantly freezes while you're waiting on something, there is no visible progress (at least as I checked out in 20%). This point is very good described in Gnome human interface design."
The spinning beachball only appears on applications that are busy. Move the cursor off to another application, and the beachball goes away, indicating that the system is still usable.
"Eight point. MDI is usable. It's just a point of usage (sometimes yes, sometimes not). Having hundred windows belonging to same application on screen all thrown up there on desktop is not really friendly. This point is nicely addressed in Gnome human interface design."
Hmmm, well, if I recall my history correctly, MDI was designed to correct for the problem that Windows does not have a single menubar interface.
As another point of contention, having a hundred windows up in the first place... is sort of unusable. A very nice alternative to MDI, I find, is tabbed.
I thought I made it clear I wasn't going to bother trying because I had a Rage 128 onboard?
I've got the AGP (dedicated bus) but I don't have the hardware capable of doing, as you say, power of 2 textures among other things.
I actually meant to say that people who enabled this and have other third party PCI cards may see a performance degradation because QE is sucking up the PCI bandwidth
Why not? It happened to my Gameboy, PSX, and now PS2.
There are a dearth of quality games, and if there are no games worth owning, I just won't buy them.
Doom3 is a rare exception for me; I want it.
Kingdom Hearts for PS2 as well.
I would buy a GameCube for Metroid Prime. I would buy a Gameboy Advance for Metroid Fusion and Final Fantasy Tactics. I would buy an XBox for Doom3.
I do not fill up all my time playing games, I only buy games about 1 every 5 months or so. Even then, I usually get the classic rerelease or the used version for half off.
In that lights react to moving objects and moving lights affect the environment. So that lights cast through the branches of a tree shimmer and ripple asthe leaves move, which isn't possible in any other engine yet...
That, at least, is the hope.
We'll see how close iD gets next year when Doom3 comes out.
Well, I've heard that MS builds each XBox at a loss.
If you pay $199 for an XBox and MS pays $150 for you to take it, and you spend $30 on a modchip and $60 on Doom3, Microsoft in no way can make up the money you cost them:)
OS X 10.2 is recompiled against a whole new compiler and set of libraries (gcc 3.1) which necessitates a full round of testing and development, it adds new features, like hardware accelerated compositing engine, IPv6, new networking software (Rendevous/ZeroConf), new printing software (CUPS), new UI interfaces (like spring loaded folders, a popular request), handwriting technology (Ink), as well as improved SMB browsing, remote disk access, and performance improvements.
Now the real question; do you want to argue over a point release?
I would think a point release adds drivers, enhanced stability, enhanced security, or enhanced reliability. A major (not point) release would add features (check) and change the way the OS is used (check), while a point release doesn't change anything except fix 'issues'.
I've been dealing just fine with one mouse button, myself. With the combinations of 'shift', 'ctrl', 'alt', 'command', and pairs of these, I find I have access to 9 virtual mouse buttons.
And if I need more... I buy a three button mouse.
Your asking why Macs don't ship with more? The average consumer probably still doesn't need a second mouse button yet. If you're paying for Maya, a $30 USB mouse is small change.
Given that perhaps they form 4% of the US market but it is claimed they form 25% of Alias customers, that actually means there are more Mac Alias users percentage wise than there are PC Alias users.
Isn't that funny? If it's true, then it means Alias can grow it's market by helping Apple grow Apple's market. Which is very convenient, I think.
You aren't forced to, now, pay Apple for 10.2; you can just, well, install FreeBSD. Or Darwin at least. Or Yellow Dog Linux. Or Debian. Or whatever. Why does exiting Apple mean going for cheaper and lower quality components? You can still run your iBook or 17" iMac with a conventional Linux or BSD based OS...
Now, as I see it, what you're trying to do is avoid becoming an addicted zealot.
That is understandable. I loathe myself for lusting after a 20gb iPod and a 17" iMac or a 23" Cinema HD Display.
But... it almost seems that you're overcompensating in your actions.
"Hm, I don't want to be prey to AppleLust and AppleZealotry, so I'll get rid of my Mac altogether."
Is this like losing weight through purging? Or controlling sexual desire through abstinence?
The weakness is in you, not in Apple. Getting rid of the Apple hardware doesn't remove the fact that you still have that weakness in the first place.
The difference (for me) is that I recognize I have the weakness (AppleLust), but as much as I *want*, I don't let it compel me to instant spot purchases or decisions.
In your position I would avoid upgrading to 10.2 then.
Because they will unleash a whole new set of toys, akin to the iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie stuff. Rendevous ZeroConf networking. iCal calendaring. iSync to put your calendars, vCards, and other contact stuff on your cell phone, iPod, PDA, and website/homepage. Ink, to let you do handwriting recognition in the OS. Etc. Etc. Etc.
I suppose they will release some sort of music app. Or a sfx app. Or a compositing app. They did buy all those software houses recently. If you don't upgrade to 10.2, you probably won't get access to them, and then you can't get hooked on them.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't begrudge you enjoyment of Nausicaa the movie...
But I hated it.
Caveat: I would compare Nausicaa the movie to Nausicaa the anime as Dune, the abridged Lynch movie, to Dune, the series of books written by Frank Herbert.
Explanation: The manga-books of Nausicaa are so much richer and endearing and touching than the movie was.
Or, another explanation; the manga is abridged and castrated in my opinion.
You've also got to consider that Firewire vs USB2 is pointless when it's the hard drive that's the speed bottleneck.
My iPod only pushes 15mb/s, not the 50mb/s claimed Firewire limit.
Then there's the other thing: the Yepp solution is still 'vapor', insofar as it is still 5 months away from being in the channel. 5 months away from being a first generation $400 product.
The Apple iPod, in comparison, is a $400 *now* product, and it's 3rd generation now (1st gen 5gb, 2nd gen 10gb in same form factor, 3rd gen 10gb in slightly smaller form factor with a solid state scrollwheel), meaning it's got 2 generations of real world trials behind it.
Five months from now, will the Apple iPod be cheaper? Possibly. Will the Apple iPod offer more storage at the same price? Possibly. Will the Apple iPod offer more features (thanks to iSynch, iCal, etc)? Possibly. Will the Apple iPod offer more playback features (WMA, OGG, etc)? Possibly.
So you get *all* that for the price of an $18 Firewire card.
Whereas your USB2... well, that's 5 months from now. Lots of things can change in 5 months.
The iPod is a hard drive. Once hooked up to a computer using Firewire, you *can* mount it as an NFS share, you can ftp to it.
You mean you want an ftp port *on* the iPod itself?
The question still remains then as to what physical transport you would use... and I hazard Firewire is still the best choice for both power, support, and data throughput, which puts you back to square one.
Plug the iPod into a computer with a Firewire port and let it mount as a harddrive. What, you want to plug the iPod into a computer with the Firewire port and then access it as an FTP share?
I'm not sure I see the logic in that.
Perhaps that's why OS X went with 128x128 icons?
Even on a 200dpi screen, that means an icon would be good for 0.7" on the screen.
Perhaps that's also why OS X is going with wysiwyg screen fonts, with the assumption that higher resolution displays will mean better font fidelity without additional font tweaking?
That's the first good argument against Fitts and single menubars I've heard :)
On the other hand, a large window makes a much easier target to hit than a small menubar, so that menubar on top + application window should still hold an advantage over menubar attached to window because in the end the user will still have to switch from menu to app in both situations.
Not all situations, of course.
Anyway, no, I guess I haven't forgotten which app I'm in; OS X prints the app name in bold in the menubar, so it's sorta hard to not notice. And as for closing apps x, y, and z; they all have active indicators in the Dock telling me they're still around, even with no windows open.
Besides which... logging out will close all active programs (it'll ask you first of course), so I dunno what the problem is?
the same.
I believe even *with*, and maybe *because* of 21" 1600x1200 resolution screens, Fitts law holds even more than before.
The 90 pixel tall menu is an even smaller target; your mouse, as precise as it is, has to traverse over hundreds more pixels than in the original 4" screen, making targetting menu bars even harder. Which is the reason why OS X icons scale up to 128x128, taking into account an expected increase in resolution in the future (larger icons are easier to see and hit, than traditional 32x32 icons). In fact, though it may be a hindrance now, that explains why *everything* in OS X is slightly larger.
Why? I question every statement you make.
"People who think POSIX is the best thing since sliced bread agree that Mach sucks"
Have you no opinion of your own? Just because other people think Mach sucks, you think Mach sucks? Did you know 95% of the population also think that the Mac sucks, even *before* OS X? Okay, so 95% is an exaggeration. But 'experts' also disavowed the Mac. What's new, the difference between you and them?
"The least Apple could have done would be to use a better microkernel"
How or why? What would be better about this new microkernel over the XNU-macho microkernel already in place? The macho microkernel has been tested across 16 years and 5 hardware architectures (68k, x86, PPC, Sparc, HP-UX), as well as 4 OSes (NeXT, Open, Darwin, and OS X), so it's fairly good, no?
Also, I would like to point out that the *Linux* kernel is deficient in regards to latency. Only recently has low latency and pre-emptive patches have made Linux reliably low latency. Not a problem with OS X; in which case, how do you define better?
"or to design a POSIX-compatible kernel from the ground up that was legacy-free and more similar to how Macs have always worked, no?"
You're going to have to define legacy free for me. What legacy does OS X have that burdens it. You'll also have to define how or why the classic Mac had an advantage that would make a different kernel an advantage.
The current kernel has several advantages over the classic Mac OS;
low latency: As evinced by CoreAudio
multitasking: No application can take 100% of the CPU to the exclusion of any other application.
multiprocessing: This is given 'for free' to any multi-threaded application.
multithreading: The classic Mac OS could not handle multithreading, and as such, could not handle multiple processes, multiple CPUs, and multiple tasks gracefully.
robustness: The classic Mac OS was not nearly as stable, reliable, or dependable as the current Mac OS, thanks to preemptive multitasking (to ensure no thread or process because CPU starved), protected memory spaces (to ensure that no application or process can intrude and disrupt any other application or process, including the kernel), and a much better virtual memory system to allow more efficient use of available, virtual, and shared memory. Of course, to counter this, one requires more memory than in the classic OS too.
"Like first. From users point of view, they are addressing that grey is out and they posted completely white screenshot. That could be painfull for eyes. I know I was having troubles with MOX on my Powerbook. Everything is too white and bright. "
You're right, it might be too painful on the eyes, but Apple doesn't provide a method to modify the default luminance, so for now everything is white and bright; that IS the HIG for the OS X UI.
"Second point. They are addresing that you need to use big photorealistic icons. Not true. Photorealistic icons are not simple and preety. I agree, first look is gorgeous, but from users point of view, carton like friendly icons are much closer to non-pro user. Second the sizes needed to look cool for photorealistic icons are automaticaly bigger that sizes needed for handdrawn ones. It's the question of on-screen space and memory needed for program. Programs with larger images are automaticaly slower."
They never said 'photorealistic icons'. To quote: "Your application icons should be vibrant and inviting, and should immediately convey your application's purpose. It is often useful to use a realistic rendering of the media and tool that the application represents or works with."
So your desire for rich, cartoony, friendly icons do not conflict at all with Apple's guidelines.
"Thrird point. Constant use of controls. I agree but, why the hell QT and iTunes looks completely different than other ones."
They claim it's consistent. They have *two* interfaces available in Interface Builder, brushed metal and white, which actually is the same as the difference between the PowerBook and the iBook, isn't it? Anyway, they seem to suggest that anything 'digital lifestyle' should be brushed metal and everything else is white.
"Fourth point. Drop down dialogs out of captions are not as good as they seem to be. Apple suggests that ok, cancel, etc should be put on bottom of dialog. So you get two ok and two cancel buttons. Without some visible border between."
Where do they say that you should have two pairs of ok and cancel buttons? What's a caption, btw? Sheets dropping out of dialogs, you mean? They don't suggest that you interrupt a dialog with a sheet, anywhere. Sheets are used in lieu of a dialog when you want to interrupt the user *and* keep the interruption attached to the document, instead of freezing the UI with a permanently on top dialog.
"Fifth point. They forgot to take in consideration points of no happenings. While Aqua constantly freezes while you're waiting on something, there is no visible progress (at least as I checked out in 20%). This point is very good described in Gnome human interface design."
The spinning beachball only appears on applications that are busy. Move the cursor off to another application, and the beachball goes away, indicating that the system is still usable.
"Eight point. MDI is usable. It's just a point of usage (sometimes yes, sometimes not). Having hundred windows belonging to same application on screen all thrown up there on desktop is not really friendly. This point is nicely addressed in Gnome human interface design."
Hmmm, well, if I recall my history correctly, MDI was designed to correct for the problem that Windows does not have a single menubar interface.
As another point of contention, having a hundred windows up in the first place... is sort of unusable. A very nice alternative to MDI, I find, is tabbed.
Now you can say Apple has had this feature since OS X 1.2 errr 10.2!
I thought I made it clear I wasn't going to bother trying because I had a Rage 128 onboard?
I've got the AGP (dedicated bus) but I don't have the hardware capable of doing, as you say, power of 2 textures among other things.
I actually meant to say that people who enabled this and have other third party PCI cards may see a performance degradation because QE is sucking up the PCI bandwidth
I have a PCI Rage on my PowerBook, so I'm not gonna bother trying.
The point is though that enabling QE on PCI will take away bandwidth from other PCI cards, such as storage, sound, and networking.
You can also turn of the bounce.
cmd-H also hides the program without minimizing.
I love the Dock, but the two features you hate the most are 'missing' in my daily use.
Well, on my PowerBook under /System/Library/Extensions there's ATIRage128.kext
:)
But I dunno how it is with the newer Radeon video cards, and what else is needed. I'm just speculating, for the experienced Unix/Linux hacker
Copy the drivers, first, in OS X.
Then boot into console mode. Single user, as it were.
Back up the originals, then copy over with the PowerBook drivers.
I imagine this would work.
If it doesn't, I guess you reinstall OS X?
Why not? It happened to my Gameboy, PSX, and now PS2.
There are a dearth of quality games, and if there are no games worth owning, I just won't buy them.
Doom3 is a rare exception for me; I want it.
Kingdom Hearts for PS2 as well.
I would buy a GameCube for Metroid Prime.
I would buy a Gameboy Advance for Metroid Fusion and Final Fantasy Tactics.
I would buy an XBox for Doom3.
I do not fill up all my time playing games, I only buy games about 1 every 5 months or so. Even then, I usually get the classic rerelease or the used version for half off.
Having seen only screenshots of both...
I have to say two words:
Dynamic lights.
In that lights react to moving objects and moving lights affect the environment. So that lights cast through the branches of a tree shimmer and ripple asthe leaves move, which isn't possible in any other engine yet...
That, at least, is the hope.
We'll see how close iD gets next year when Doom3 comes out.
Well, I've heard that MS builds each XBox at a loss.
:)
If you pay $199 for an XBox and MS pays $150 for you to take it, and you spend $30 on a modchip and $60 on Doom3, Microsoft in no way can make up the money you cost them
What's your view of that, then?
:)
It's an interesting mix of high poly and low poly. Then there's the fact that the monsters walk, not slide
Notice I said *need*?
:)
Does the average user, which you said was Windows, need a second mouse button?
Then you can extrapolate: Do they use the second mouse button?
Most folks I know don't, including my Dad
OS X 10.2 is recompiled against a whole new compiler and set of libraries (gcc 3.1) which necessitates a full round of testing and development, it adds new features, like hardware accelerated compositing engine, IPv6, new networking software (Rendevous/ZeroConf), new printing software (CUPS), new UI interfaces (like spring loaded folders, a popular request), handwriting technology (Ink), as well as improved SMB browsing, remote disk access, and performance improvements.
Now the real question; do you want to argue over a point release?
I would think a point release adds drivers, enhanced stability, enhanced security, or enhanced reliability. A major (not point) release would add features (check) and change the way the OS is used (check), while a point release doesn't change anything except fix 'issues'.
Why would Classic die, and why would everything have to be recompiled?
Code Morphing.
Transmeta laid off 40% of it's workforce.
IBM has DAISY as an open source project.
HP has Dynamo, which Apple could license.
I've been dealing just fine with one mouse button, myself. With the combinations of 'shift', 'ctrl', 'alt', 'command', and pairs of these, I find I have access to 9 virtual mouse buttons.
And if I need more... I buy a three button mouse.
Your asking why Macs don't ship with more? The average consumer probably still doesn't need a second mouse button yet. If you're paying for Maya, a $30 USB mouse is small change.
Well, you are a sample size of one.
How many Mac users do you know?
Given that perhaps they form 4% of the US market but it is claimed they form 25% of Alias customers, that actually means there are more Mac Alias users percentage wise than there are PC Alias users.
Isn't that funny? If it's true, then it means Alias can grow it's market by helping Apple grow Apple's market. Which is very convenient, I think.
You aren't forced to, now, pay Apple for 10.2; you can just, well, install FreeBSD. Or Darwin at least. Or Yellow Dog Linux. Or Debian. Or whatever. Why does exiting Apple mean going for cheaper and lower quality components? You can still run your iBook or 17" iMac with a conventional Linux or BSD based OS...
Now, as I see it, what you're trying to do is avoid becoming an addicted zealot.
That is understandable. I loathe myself for lusting after a 20gb iPod and a 17" iMac or a 23" Cinema HD Display.
But... it almost seems that you're overcompensating in your actions.
"Hm, I don't want to be prey to AppleLust and AppleZealotry, so I'll get rid of my Mac altogether."
Is this like losing weight through purging? Or controlling sexual desire through abstinence?
The weakness is in you, not in Apple. Getting rid of the Apple hardware doesn't remove the fact that you still have that weakness in the first place.
The difference (for me) is that I recognize I have the weakness (AppleLust), but as much as I *want*, I don't let it compel me to instant spot purchases or decisions.
In your position I would avoid upgrading to 10.2 then.
Because they will unleash a whole new set of toys, akin to the iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie stuff. Rendevous ZeroConf networking. iCal calendaring. iSync to put your calendars, vCards, and other contact stuff on your cell phone, iPod, PDA, and website/homepage. Ink, to let you do handwriting recognition in the OS. Etc. Etc. Etc.
I suppose they will release some sort of music app. Or a sfx app. Or a compositing app. They did buy all those software houses recently. If you don't upgrade to 10.2, you probably won't get access to them, and then you can't get hooked on them.